Have a comment on this page? Email the Odd Emperor!

Much Love from Mr. Mott, Part 6

I'm just dumping this up here exacly the I received it....This is his reply to my last charming missive. This is Mr. Mott's reply.

on 5/29/03 2:03 PM, Odd Empire at odd_empire@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> Knowledge; reasoning ability; veracity--The list
> goes on.
>
> OK, why did you not say that in the first place?
>
>>

I think the statement is self-explanatory.

>>>>

>>
>> The point is a simple one. These anomalies exist,
> and >are unaccounted for without the consideration of
>> non-human or pre-human agency. The Eltanin antenna,
>> for instance, was discovered decades ago, by a U.S.
>> government survey ship. Your (typical) ad hominem,
>> personal attack on someone reporting it (in this case
>> Streiber, since this particular instance of the story
>> was at his site--but it is in plenty of other
> places), >in no way changes this fact. You use the
> typical ad >hominem discrediting tactic of someone who
> is
>> short on knowledge and long on nerve. This seems to
>> be your modus operandi in general, though.
>
> Once again you are failing to address the issue and
> bringing up a number of other unrelated things to
> muddy the waters. I pointed out that nether rense.com
> nor Undiscovered Country are what I would conceder
> reliable sources and I gave you a few reasons why I
> believe this. Then you have attempted to reverse my
> argument that your (unending) personal attack is in
> fact coming from me directed at those other two
> gentlemen.
>

Again, you use ad hominem tactics to avoid and dodge information which
shatters your shallow worldview. I recommend that you go to google.com and
do a search on "Eltanin Antenna." Just don't click on any links to
Streiber's or other sites which you disdain.

> Are you unable to stick with one subject or is there
> some other problem?
>

I'm on topic. You're dodging with the same old ad hominem tactics.

>>
>>> As for your other recommendation, Ill take a rain
>>> check on that, thank you very much. What I find
>>> arrogant is people expounding on subjects that
> they
>>> have little knowledge of.
>>
>>
>> My, this is certainly the pot calling the kettle
>> black. In fact, you expound on books--with
>> intellectual adjectives like "crappy," no less--that
>> you have never read. Arrogance, cluelessness, and
>> pomposity--as revealed by your nom de plume of
>> "Emperor--" certainly are accurate terms to describe
>> you. BTW, this is not "ad hominem;" it is
> observation >based on demonstrable facts and examples.
>
> I actually read much of your material on your old web
> page (and enjoyed much of it). The adjective "crappy"
> was describing self published books in general.
>

Glad to see that you enjoyed some of it. Again, the books aren't
self-published, but your innate hostility indicates to me that you are
probably a very frustrated, often-rejected writer.

This is kind of interesting for I belive it's the core of Mr. Motts entire tirade. I made some mention on the Odd Empire that some of his books are self published. Specifically Caverns' Cauldrons and Concealed Creatures. I find that this book is distributed by Hidden Mysteries,an outfit in Frankston Texas (US.) which seems to be a subsidiary of TGS publishing. TGS was a religious book outfit but they've branched out into more fringe subjects. TGS is a print on demand house, meaning an authour sends a self-editied manuscript to them and they take care of printing and sales. Prining is acomplished one book at a time as the market demads. T his is by definition, self published.

In TGS's own words

"TGS Publishing offers various services and varied cost saving options to prospective authors"

They go on to say here

"As things developed in this venture, by the 'pushing' of God, we branched out into Print on Demand publishing under TGS Publishers. There was a need in the industry for a unique service such as this. Some of the best authors with the most unique information in the world are yet unpublished. We (*or God) saw the need and set out to fulfill that goal. The Universe even sent investors that freely offered their money to purchase our first POD machine."

I don't think there is any question that Caverns' Cauldrons and Concealed Creatures is a self published book. It's certainly self edited! I was astounded to find a number of typos in the book.

> Besides, I am arrogant! I admit that! Would you care
> to send me a copy of your book so I can read it an
> become more enlightened? It probably won't do anything
> for my arrogance problem but it might give you the
> satisfaction of trying.
>

Nah. If you really want to read it you'll buy a copy.

>>
>>> If you fall under this
>>> framework I would call you arrogant. Since I know
> you
>>> only from some of your work and this letter I can
> only
>>> say that your conclusions appear misguided and
> more
>>> than a little arrogant. That is simply one opinion
>>> based on what I have read on your web page. Your
>>> letter here serves to confirm that I was correct.
>>>
>>
>> Au contraire, I believe that your reply more than
>> demonstrates your own abysmal arrogance and
> ignorance. >You repeat the same errors of reasoning
> in your >arguments; you make sweeping generalizations,
> ad >hominem statements and pronouncements (based in no
>> discernable fact, but only in your own arrogance and
>> self-certainty), and puerile statements of various
>> sorts.
>
> Only the discernable facts of your statements, nothing
> else.
>
>>

Meaningless. Yet again.

>>>
>>>> If ignorance is bliss, then you must truly be in
>>> Nirvana....
>>>
>>> The last statement demonstrates that you have
> little
>>> understanding of the Hindu religion. That.s OK,
> the
>>> concepts are rather complex. Lots of people have a
>>> hard time with them.
>>>
>>
>> Nirvana is a Buddhist tenet and concept--in fact, it
>> is the penultimate goal of that religion. There you
> go >again, demonstrating for all your complete
> ignorance of >topics you stand in judgement of--in
> this case, >religion, mythology, and related fields.
> You are >truely a pompous cartoon, "Emperor."
> Unfortunately, >you have no clothes. Your nude mind,
> shriveled and >unrounded as it is, is not an appealing
> sight....
>
> Here we go again.....
>
> Nirvana is indeed a Hindu concept as well as a
> Buddhist one. You might want to check your tailor
> again. It also proves my point that you don't really
> understand, achieving "nothingness" is not what I had
> in mind.
>
>>

Nirvana found it's ultimate expression--and development as a religious
concept--in Buddhism. The same came be said of Maya. Since Buddhism is
rooted in Hinduism, your confusion or lack of understanding is, well,
understandable.

Basically, you continue to demonstrate your ignorance.

>>
>>>>
>>>>> Underground
>>>>> civilization is only the tiniest portion of a
> huge
>>> body of recorded mythology.
>>>>> Let me tell you about the Native American myth
>>> about how the jackass got his
>>>>> tale (tail?)
>>>>>
>>> It.s very interesting how you cannot refute my
>>> argument; you can only insult me personally. This
> is
>>> known as the ad-homonym approach to debate, if
> some
>>> opinion offends you then you go after the person
> who
>>> made the statement, not the statement itself.
>>
>>
>> No, this is _your_ methodology. This is the method
>> you demonstrate on your webpage, where you expound on
>> matters and works of which you have absolutely no
> clue >whatsoever. Again, to call you a buffoon is not
> an ad >hominem attack; it's simply an observation
> based on >your behavior and very poor reasoning
> ability. By the >way, it's "ad hominem," not
> "homonym". Again, you >demonstrate your ignorance,
> combined with a laughable >arrogance.
>>
>
> Why, you are correct! Thank you .
>
You're welcome.

> See how easy that was, now what were we really talking
> about?
>
>>
>>> Generally speaking it is better (and much more
> mature)
>>> to go after my assertions and not my personality.
>>>
>>
>> Again, you are calling the kettle black. You're
> also a
>> hypocrite--demonstrably so. You decry your own
> methodology here.
>>
>
> Really; I attack your argument and you attack me. I
> point this out and you say this is MY method?
>

Pointing out a fact--such as your self-protective double-standards (i.e.,
hypocrisy) is not an attack. It is an observation of fact.

>
>> See the above statement. In fact, such insult is
>> clearly implied; and the fact that you are clueless
>> about the material you deride indicates clearly what
>> kind of person you are. Have you read the books in
>> question? Of course not. This paints quite a clear
>> picture of you, or would seem to do so.
>
> Of course I have, much more than you can possibly
> imagine.
>
You have read neither of my books. Your last message left this quite clear.
So now you're adding "lying" to your other "methodologies?"

Tell me specifically which books of mine you have read, or have in your
possession. This is easy enough to verify.

> Say, are you running this through several language
> translators before reading it or someting? You do not
> seem to understand what I'm saying at all.
>

I understand you quite well....

>>
>>
>> Your "position" (a lack of one, actually) has been
>> clearly refuted. Your own attempts at rebuttal only
>> assist, in your self-discrediting (see all of the
>> above).
>
> I have seen it, you have not rebutted any shred of my
> position (that you have a silly web page).
>
It would seem that you are the one suffering from a lack of
comprehension....
>>
>>> This is a very bad stance if you are attempting to
>>> bolster your position against mine. It actually
>>> strengthens my position and makes you (in the
> opinion
>>> of some people who read these words) *look* like a
>>> jackass. If you wish to invoke debate on some
> point
>>> reflected on yur web page I am quite willing to
> debate
>>> you.
>>>
>>
>> What do you call what we are doing?
>
> I am debating, you are abusing.
>
Whatever. You're debating--What? The fact that I've pointed out your
various inconsistencies and untruths? The facts speak for themselves and
are apparent.

>>
>> You see, your entire position is based on ad hominem
>> garbage; you know nothing of that of which you write.
>> You have no basis for argumentation, since you have
> no >knowledge of the topics (or books) you seek to
> refute.
>> You've really stuck your foot in it, haven't you?
>>
>
> Prove that please. I have not once insulted you
> personally, unless you call poking fun at your ideas a
> personal affront, in which case I would closely
> examine why you are so offended.
>

Actually, I'm not offended. Did I not thank you for the attention?

I do, however, believe that your approach is petty and mean-spirited. I
detect more than a touch of (un)professional jealousy, due to your methods
and language--not to mention your deceptive and inept means of
argumentation.

> <<snip>>
>
>>> If you would be so kind to tell me the publishing
>>> house name and perhaps the ISBN code I will be
> happy
>>> to retract that statement. BTW, self-published
>>> includes .on demand. publishing houses.
>>>
>>
>> 0-9713166-3-5. That's the ISBN of the paperback
> edition.
>>
>
> Thank you, that was easy too was it not?
>
You asked once, you got it once. What's your point?
>>

>>
>
>> I agree with your statement here. In fact, I'm a
>> stickler for facts and for verifiable evidence of any
>> statement or claim. This has gotten me into hot
> water >more than once, and has left no love lost among
> certain >"new age" claimants and self-styled gurus.
>
> I could not agree with you more. This is essence of
> skepticism and in case you have some doubt over the
> way I am using that term it is defined as .
>
> A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind;
> dubiety.
> http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skepticism
>

Empirical thought is imperative. But this doesn't mean that you discount
everything in order to inflate your own ego of sense of omniscience. You'll
figure this out as you grow older and more experienced in life, though.

I would wager that you are still a teenager, or have been one very recently.

>>
>>
>>>> For that matter, where are your _original_ works,
>>> ideas, concepts, or
>>>> writings to be found in the marketplace of ideas?
>
>>> Again, I would guess a
>>>> resounding NOWHERE will answer this.
>>>
>>> I certainly don.t self publish if that.s what you
>>> mean.
>>>
>>
>> As you should have seen, neither do I. Hidden
>> Mysteries and Gemstar are certainly not owned by me.
>
> Did you pay a fee to have your stuff published?
>

Of course not. I have standard publishing agreements as a result of the
time-honored hell of writing query letters. What about yourself? Any
vanity-press versions of your work out there? How about any versions, from
any publishers?

>>
>> You sound suspiciously like a frustrated aspiring
>> writer....
>
> Aspiring yes, not frustrated a bit yet. give me about
> ten years and we shall see. ; )
>
Keep aspiring. Attacking the work of others will certainly not help you to
achieve your own desires or ambitions, though.

>>
>> You're welcome. BTW, feel free to lift that "fits
> of pique" from my previous message if you're at a loss
> for words. Oh--you already did.
>>
>
> Much obliged!
>

No problem.

>
>> Your copyright does not supercede my own. In other
>> words, a conversational exchange of e-mail is equally
>> owned by both recipients. This is a matter of fact
>> under the law. Surely you already knew this?
>
> Natrally but what I'm refering to is the web page.
>
So am I. Mine, to be precise. Expect to see our exchanges there.

>>
>>> If you intend to re publish this letter I must ask
>>> that you run it by me first. I already have your
>>> permission to publish your words, thank you very
> much!
>>>
>>
>> Yours is assumed by your participation in this
>> conversation. You can further assume that any
>> reproduction will be reciprocal.
>>
>
> Nope, I did not agree to any such thing. I'm not too
> worried though and I never assume anything. You
> however made it very clear that you want me to publish
> this letter on the Empire page. I am making it clear
> that any content on the Odd Empire web page located at
> URL http://www.blackfish-enterprises.com/oddempire/ is
> copyrighted material as described by the disclaimer.
>

Your agreement is not required. Get a lawyer and find out. You lifted the
copyright title of my webpage from my site, without permission, and
reproduced it on your own. Copyright notices are clearly displayed at the
site and have always been so. Technically, you have already violated
copyright. Unlike yourself, I have a publishing history to back up my
claims.
On the other hand, I have the right, as a writer, to respond to any review.
Yours is no exception.

Look for a nice long piece about our interaction.

>>>
>>>> Oh--and you may want to try actually reading a
> book
>>> once in a while. You
>>>> might even learn something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I.m reading about four right now, I'm.m in the
> middle of
>>> a re-write of one and in the primary write of
> another
>>> (it.s a slow week).
>>>
>>
>> Re-writing...What? Surely not your own work(s)?
>>
>
> Who else's - not the stuff I'm reading. Sorry that
> statement *was* a little unclear.
>
I'm actually interested--in a non-critical way--in seeing your work.

>
>> How about a little evidence? Can you point me to
> your >published works? I'd love to take a look at
> them.
>>
>
> - I bet! ; )
>

Well, it's all a matter of courage, isn't it? I mean, you remain anonymous;
you revile and critique others while making dubious claims about being a
writer yourself--yet you do not demonstrate either your identity or your
work. This leads to an inevitable series of possible conclusions:
1) You are a phoney and have no original work;
2) You are a coward;
3) You have original work yet are still a coward when it comes to displaying
it, and your true identity.

It will be interesting to see if you have the "courage" to anonymously
publish this as the Emperor, at your site. I certainly don't expect you to
have the courage to back up your contentions by revealing your true
identity. For the same reason, your copyright claims and statements are
laughable. You've put no name of ownership on your site, and since your
legal name is almost certainly not "The Emperor" or "The Webminister," your
material is fair game.

> I have several things on the web under different
> names. One is actually based on stuff that I found on
> your own web page if you can believe that.
Like I said, I'd like to see it. Sounds interesting.
> Unfortunately I'm a little reluctant to tell you more
> (for reasons that should be obvious) , maybe later, if
> you'r really really good!
>
I don't expect you to have the courage to reveal your actual identity.

>>
>> I utilize Occam/Ockham's theorem in a similar frame
> of >reference. If you go to
>> http://home.earthlink.net/~mottimorph/Earth.html, and
>> read Section 8, you'll see what I mean.
>
> At some point I may, I suspect that you are in a data
> collection mode right now so any perusal of a web page
> (presumably) under your control would not be a good
> idea concerning the level of attack you have already
> demonstrated.
>

You are simply experiencing reciprocal energy. You put out negativity, you
get it back.

I'm not sure what you mean by "level of attack." What you are seeing is
genuine rebuttal and debate, factually based--something which you are
apparently ill-equipped to deal with or demonstrate, thus far.

>>
>
> Ditto!
>
> Take care!
>
Take it easy.
Have a beer or something.
--W.M. Mott

Of course I could just choose to do what he says; kick back suck down a few brews, but the Odd Emperor has this funny idea that this letter should be answered. so ...